I like to go read a few other boards that aren't quite as pet-oriented as ours (we're all "fur-mommies" in their eyes), just for the entertainment value. On one of the boards, many members feel that the dogs should still be fought, and that making dog fighting illegal has caused the decline of the breed. They feel this way because back when fighting was legal, the only ones who really had this breed were the Dogmen (always capitalized!). These Dogmen were very careful about their breeding program, and even more careful about who got one of their dogs. The saying is always, "close the circle." Since dog fighting has become illegal, every Joe Schmoe down the street has a pit bull and every Tom, Dick and Harry is breeding their "big blue with a 24" head that would make a GREAT guard dog." Did illegalizing dog fighting cause this problem?

Disclaimer: As far as I'm concerned, and as far as the forum is concerned, dog fighting is illegal and it is not being advocated for in any shape or manner.

"Remember - every time your dog gets somewhere on a tight leash *a fairy dies and it's all your fault.* Think of the fairies." http://www.positivepetzine.com"

I dont feel dog fighting has anything to do with. I feel its directly related to who is breeding. If fighting were made legal it wouldnt change the fact that there will always be idiots breeding. Pit Bulls are just one breed in a long line of the latest craze.

Not only am I a member of the Michelle says my dog is fat club I'm the president!I can Alpha Roll hair!

I almost hesitate to respond. Of course as a disclaimer, I'm not in any way, shape, or form advocating dog fighting. I think it's horrible, especially after reading The Lost Dogs. Ugh. But my response is purely academic...

Anyway, this did make me think of the problem that they're having in the UK. They have pretty heavy BSL-- no "pit bull type" dogs, etc., and have had that law in place almost 20 years now-- long enough to really see what the effects are. The problem of aggressive dogs and dog bites has increased. They've become even more of a "status" dog and are even more poorly bred and handled.

That said, just because the byproduct of a law is OTHER idiots, doesn't mean you get rid of that law. Baby/bathwater, etc. In my opinion, you rethink enforcement, you ramp up education... Two wrongs don't make a right. There is always a fallout from every rule and regulation; getting rid of that regulation doesn't solve the problem; it hides it.

-- In the case of BSL, the UK is now rethinking the enforcement, and putting the emphasis on irresponsible ownership as opposed to breed-specific regulations. Instead of throwing out a law altogether, they're looking at other ways to tackle the problem. They're not throwing out regulations altogether because they had an unsavory outcome; they are rethinking the way they structured that regulation to address the fallout.

"In these bodies, we will live; in these bodies we will die.Where you invest your love, you invest your life." --Marcus Mumford

I agree that a lot of the decline of the breed has to do with being a trendy or fad breed. The Pit Bull is not the only dog this has happened to. Personally, I can't wait for the Pit Bull fad to die out. Once that happens the people who are truly in the breed for the betterment of the breed can get back to business and repair what has been done to these dogs. My only concern at that point is what breed will become the next big thing?

These Dogmen were very careful about their breeding program, and even more careful about who got one of their dogs. The saying is always, "close the circle." Since dog fighting has become illegal, every Joe Schmoe down the street has a pit bull and every Tom, Dick and Harry is breeding their "big blue with a 24" head that would make a GREAT guard dog." Did illegalizing dog fighting cause this problem?

Careful how? They're breeding these dogs to fight, I'm pretty sure the only parameters the dogs have to meet is their ability to win in the ring. I don't think Pit Bulls were hard to get a hold of before fighting became illegal, and they are obviously not hard to get a hold of now. I don't think making it illegal changed any of that. We see it in other breeds ALL the time, my friend breeds Ibizan Hounds, they are pretty rare and hard to come by. Someone bought a dog from her [Probably $1500-$2000 dog] was a moron about a few things, my friend ended up confiscating her dog back, he had ended up somewhere chained in a yard - he was intact at the time. If the buyer had been smarter my friend may have never caught onto the fact something bad was going on and the woman could be studding the dog out, or even producing her own puppies. She could afford one, she could afford to buy another. Money talks, I'm pretty sure even if Dogmen are careful of where the dogs go it would not be that hard for someone to purchase a dog. Also it's like anything else, you probably have "respectable" Dogmen, and then Dogmen who really don't give a crap where their dogs go.

People forget that Pit Bulls are not the first breed to go under fire. German Shepherds were pinned in the 70's and Rottweilers were pinned in the 90's. I think the only reason BSL came into play is that times have changed, dogs have changed, and people have changed. Everyone is super irresponsible and sue happy.

Yes and no.I agree that the whole fad thing is part of it - and making them illegal enhances the appeal of the breed to the people who think it's cool to be a gangsta or whatever. I also believe that the illegal side (not that I think it should be legal) is as appealing to the same people, and this is where you get not only Joe Schmoe has a pit bull, but Joe Schmoe is a total moron who's putting a 20 lg chain on his dog's neck to get it stronger to have it fight later.

However, I think that any breed that is popular on a smaller scale is less likely to go through the same things that the popular ones are, i.e. crappy breeding (take labs and hip dyaplasia, or cavalier king charles and mitral valve defects), unless the breed's selling point is something dysfunctional to start with...

Not to defend "Dogmen", keeping in mind that the ultimate goal as probably to make money and not so much the "sport" aspect of fighting, or love of dogs, but they had to keep their bread winners healthy and "happy" - and make sure that their offspring is as lucrative as possible. Like any breeders - if they produced dogs who didn't do the work - and I think a dog needs to be physically sound and fit to win dog fights - most of them probably aimed for decent dog/bitch matches where the dogs completed each other, for getting a better fighter out of that litter, therefore ameliorating the breed. Obviously there were probably the complete idiots who bred anything with a uterus and a penis together, but it happens in every breed. Now for where the puppies where going... I'm sure it varied, but it's like comparing apples and oranges - a pit bull respectable breeder will care where his/her puppies go as much as the respectable poodle breeder, and a poodle BYB is as bad as a pit bull BYB.

I remember years ago around here, we hardly ever had any pit bulls at the local SPCA, you'd rarely see them on the streets, they were definitely harder to come by. Now the SPCA busting at the seams with pits, and there's litters for sale on Craigslist every day. We see more Cane Corsos and Dogues de Bordeaux as somewhat more popular breeds, with the odd Dogo.

Yes, the breed has absolutely declined since dog fighting was made illegal. Breeding dogs exclusively for the pit produced vigorous genetics that no other breed suitability test can match. Almost without variation, the genetic quality of the dog rises the closer you get to old-time game lines.

Demo Dick

"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge

I remember years ago around here, we hardly ever had any pit bulls at the local SPCA, you'd rarely see them on the streets, they were definitely harder to come by. Now the SPCA busting at the seams with pits, and there's litters for sale on Craigslist every day. We see more Cane Corsos and Dogues de Bordeaux as somewhat more popular breeds, with the odd Dogo.

I think BSL is to blame for that. When they started banning Pit Bulls people were like... "Sweet! I'll just get a Cane Corso instead!" People have essentially started moving on to bigger and badder dogs. Not saying Corsos or Dogues are "bad" per say, but they are going to people who shouldn't even have a 4lb dog, let alone a 100lb dog.

No,i think people glorify dogmen like they are something special and awesome and did the world some huge favor.

Fad is what ruined these dogs, period end of subject and quite frankly if dogmen were so damn fabulous and great then why did they let this breed get into the hands of the people who destroyed it? ohhhh wait that's right MONEY.

AllAmericanPUP wrote:No,i think people glorify dogmen like they are something special and awesome and did the world some huge favor.

Yeah, actually, they did. They GAVE US the APBT. Dog fighting is what CREATED the breed. It is possible to dislike the means while appreciating the ends. To do this you have to be dispassionate in your analysis.

Fad is what ruined these dogs, period end of subject and quite frankly if dogmen were so damn fabulous and great then why did they let this breed get into the hands of the people who destroyed it? ohhhh wait that's right MONEY.

Ruined? Destroyed? Period, end of subject? Wrong. You really believe that the breed is done for? That's ridiculous. There are outstanding working APBT's across the country competing in every sport you can name. Look around this very board for proof.

Demo Dick

"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge

If you mean decline of the breed in numbers I do not think this is the case. The Pit Bull is actually the most popular breed in America. If you mean decline in ability I guess it would determine which abilities are specifically being spoke of. If it really has lead to the decline then I would rather see the breed decline. Why have a low standard for humanity to keep a high standard for a dog breed? In the end it was the registries that were more so responsible for the decline in the abilities as they did not provide alternatives to fighting.

As for the history I tire of seeing people claim the bred has been bred to fight. The reality is less than 5% were ever fought even when it was legal. Read books by Colby and Stratton and they will point this out. To place a blanket over the whole breed is wrong and is one of the reasons the breed as a whole has a bad image. Unfortunately the bred to fight myth is perpetuated mostly by ignorant or other motive driven shelters or breeders looking to play on the idea for a quick buck.To make the analogy that the breed was bred to fight is like saying humans are bred to be criminals simply because 5% choose to be. Were some bred to fight sure but the breed as a whole was not and to say so gives a bad image to the breed that it can not escape from. Over the years the breed has been bred for many purposes that include all manners of work from farm hand to hunting to helping purge rats due to plague to simple loved pets. What if the same people that make this claim about being bred to fight made the opposite claim that the breed was not bred to fight and only 5% ever were even at a time when it was legal. Do you think the image would be the same? I do not and I always question either the motive or the true education of someone who makes the claim. I do not think everyone making the statement has bad motive. I think mostly these are individuals who have not studied the breed from long existing valid sources and have themselves fallen prey to the myth simply because it is more widespread and easier to come across given the nature of the internet.

TinaMartin wrote:Actually the breed started specificly for the fighting pits. What was done with the breed after is not relevent to why it was created.

Actually the breed was a farm hand and used in hunting activities with bears and bulls. This evolved into bull and bear baiting that was made illegal. The illegality pushed those interested in the sproting and betting aspect of the breed into local pubs where pits were dug in the floor (thus the part of the name "Pit") where it took part in a sport called ratting. At the time this was good due to various plague types of illness, which were spread by the rats. Theodore Rosevelt actually trained for ratting in the basement of the White House. As bloodlust increased and betting on the dog became more widespread people began to fight them against one another to prove their dominance mostly for gambling purposes. The breed was around under various names far before it was used against each other and the name formalized under the UKC in 1898. While the UKC did initially take part in the fighting aspect it was not until the ADBA was formalized under the primary motive of fighting that it was thought of more so as a fighting breed. The UKC for the most part quickly got out of the game and followed the route of the AKC in pageantry contests leaving the ADBA as the registry that held out the longest under the idea. If one was to make the statement that the ADBA Pit Bull was bred historically for fighting this would be closer to the truth as this was the purpose of the ADBA but to make the claim against the breed as a whole is not. Throughout its history most Pit Bulls have and still go unregistered with any registry the same as most have never been bred nor are they still bred to fight.

Read historical books from Stratton and Louis Colby and you will see this to be the case. I have corresponded with Louis on the breed. His dad along with Guy McCord set up the ADBA, which was later transferred to Frank Ferris and then later to Ralph Greenwood. If you have a more credible source than Louis Colby I would love to see it and would certainly be willing to reconsider my position.

http://www.nyx.net/~mbur/apbtfaqover.htmlhttp://www.pitbull411.com/history.htmlAny time there is serious debate in a dog breeds history I follow the middle ground. I believe that either extreme is not going to be true. Bull dogs were used for bull baiting and were in the mid range size of about 65 lbs. Terriers that were in the ratting pits were much smaller, scrappier and quicker. For the common working man who was not involved in bull baiting it was not practical to own a dog that large. Bulldogs and Terriers were crossed to create a dog between about 20-35 lbs. People involved with fighting and baiting sports were concerned about how their dogs performed in the pit and the faster more agile dogs were better at it. I think that thinking other wise is naive. "Dog men" were not going to let people know what went into their dogs and breeding programs. I put it under the category of where there is smoke there is fire.

Not only am I a member of the Michelle says my dog is fat club I'm the president!I can Alpha Roll hair!

Any time there is serious debate in a dog breeds history I follow the middle ground. I believe that either extreme is not going to be true. Bull dogs were used for bull baiting and were in the mid range size of about 65 lbs. Terriers that were in the ratting pits were much smaller, scrappier and quicker. For the common working man who was not involved in bull baiting it was not practical to own a dog that large. Bulldogs and Terriers were crossed to create a dog between about 20-35 lbs. People involved with fighting and baiting sports were concerned about how their dogs performed in the pit and the faster more agile dogs were better at it. I think that thinking other wise is naive. "Dog men" were not going to let people know what went into their dogs and breeding programs. I put it under the category of where there is smoke there is fire.

With much respect I hardly see how falling on the side of fighting in falling in the middle ground. To fall in the middle ground would be to say some were bred for fighting, which is different than the whole breed itself being bred for the purpose of fighting.

As for PitBull411 however much of the information has been taken out of context from their references, the references provided have provided a skewed history or the references provided are from more recent times written by writers with little to no experience in the breed in order to sell a book or promote an agenda.

One of the first ways you can see if someone knows what they are talking about from true research on historical documentation is how they spell the name. If some one spells it as pit bull or in current times says Pit Bull type this either shows their ignorance on the breed or their biased nature in denying its heritage as one of the oldest recognized pure bred breeds in existence. There is no such thing as a Pit Bull type. It is either a Pit Bull (American Pit Bull Terrier) or not a Pit Bull. If it is mixed then it is a mix/mutt and a reference should not be made to the Pit Bull part of the mix no more than what ever it is mixed with. No one would say a Chow type or a Dalmation type. This failure to properly classify a dog as either pure or a mix breed is one of the very things that skews bite statistics and gives the true Pit Bull its undeserved reputation and thus supports politicians pushing for BSL. The root of this lies with the AKC and their failure to make proper references to proper registries when politicians call and ask them about the Pit Bull breed. Instead of making the proper reference to the UKC, ADBA, APBR or other registry that registers the breed as pure they simply deny it is a recognized breed. While this is true as far as their registry is concerned it is disingenuous as they know for a fact it is recognized as such by others. They also fail to mention that their very own Am Staff was built on 100% Pit Bull stock and is one in the same. This failure is intentional I believe as a means of keeping the Am Staff off of BSL lists.

Please do not mistake when I use the term ignorance as I am not trying to be negative or belittle anyone I am using it in the strict sense of the word in meaning not educated on a topic. We are all ignorant to different degrees on different topics.

While the sources you list date back to the mid 90's my primary source Louis Colby is now 90 years old and he was born into the breed as his father was a co-founder of the ADBA. Order his book and read the dedication "This book is dedicated to my father, John P. Colby (Jan 1875 - Jan 1941) whose name has been synonymous with the American Pit Bull Terrier for over 100 years." My other primary source is Richard Stratton a well known historian on the breed.

Here are some quotes from Colby's book to help understand the breed and its true history better.

P. 38 "Dogs were expected to take care of themselves. If it was jumped by another dog in the street, it was expected to "lick it." A dog however, was not expected to be a bully-starting trouble in the street for no reason."

p.42 "Many modern dog fighters tend to be impressed with "barnstormers," or dogs that are hyper and dog aggressive, not realizing that many of the gamest dogs that ever lived were quite comfortable with other dogs."

p.52 "To the Colby family the much-discussed term "gameness" means unyielding and determined. Louis likes the word unyielding the best, because gameness can manifest itself in many different ways." - Throughout the book he refers to these in terms of hunting, guarding, weight pulling, etc.

p.56 "My guess is, if you were to take anybody's strain, ours included, probably out of every 100 dogs there wouldn't be more than five or ten who were completely dead game."

p.58 In reference to John Colby's dog Whiskey. "He wouldn't bother a cat or a dog, minded his own business and was very controllable."

p.77 "In the late 1980's, due to several highly publicized incidents involving careless breeders and owners, the very name of the Pit Bull became synonymous with aggression, violent behavior, and untrustworthiness. How different from the image (p.78) of the breed just a few decades before. Where once the Pit Bull had been advertised and sold as a "pal for children" (and in England as the "nursemaid dog")."

p.94 "In the yard of John P. Colby they (AKC) found Colby's Primo, a dog they felt represented a sound, athletic dog. Primo was measured and observed by this committee, and the AKC standard (for the Am Staff) was based in part on this dog."

p.95 "Some people are confused over the relationship between the modern-day American Staffordshire Terrier and the American Pit Bull Terrier. The letter from the Staffordshire Terrier Club of America (still in existence) to Louis Colby shows clearly that the two breeds are one. At the bottom of the page the words "formerly known as the American (Pit) Bullterrier" shows that only the (p.96) name was changed when the dogs were allowed AKC registration.

There are many other quotes I could pull as well but have limited these to try to keep the post as short as possible.

I have discussed the Pit Bull with Colby directly and he is a very congenial man. I would provide his phone number to you but he may not want this given (due his aging health) to be posted on a board for many others to see. For any interested however and want a true history on the breed order his book directly from his site and he will send you a signed copy. With this if you write a message with your request he will likely provide a piece of letterhead that will provide the number to you so you can contact him, his son Bruce or his daughter who now handles most of the business due to his age.

The last time I spoke with him he was unable to even return emails as he had lost most of the use of his hands all except that of one finger on a shaky hand. (now 90) It would be great to have such a well known historian to take part in today's forums as it would change the way many people think and the myths they spread. Would certainly be much less thug talk as seen in many other forums and sites. Unfortunately it looks like we are going to be left with his book as the primary source of history. Even his son Bruce sticks mostly with breeding cattle so it looks like the living history is mostly going to die with his passing.

p.56 "My guess is, if you were to take anybody's strain, ours included, probably out of every 100 dogs there wouldn't be more than five or ten who were completely dead game."

There is no doubt that dead game dogs were/are hard to come by and even harder to reproduce consistently.

But you could say this about many breeds and their jobs. How many GSDs do you think are actually capable of performing detection or protection tasks? How many could be effective herders? There is always the best and then the rest. That fact does not mean that the GSD is not bred for those traits or abilities. It just means that there are breeders who are not producing dogs that are up to par.

Yes, it is true that the APBT has been a farm utility dog, a weight pull dog, a therapy dog, a service dog, a detection dog, a war hero, etc etc. But, the thing that sets this breed apart from others is its gameness - and there is only one test for gameness, the legality of that test has nothing to do with what it has been responsible for producing.

I've read many of the books you are referencing, however, I disagree with your interpretation of them.

Foundation stock for a breed is one thing. The ABPT did descend from the dogs used for bull baiting the "bull", and stock work. They are also part of the ratting dogs, and therin lies the "terrier". However, the breed as it is was developed for dog fighting. How can you deny that when it is in the very name of the breed? Did they do many other things? Yes. They have always been a very versatile breed, but before they were the APBT they were not the APBT, and talking about what the foundation stock used to do to change what our dogs are for is denial in my opinion.

It's not nice, it's not pretty, but our dogs were developed for one thing and one thing only - to kill other dogs. Not many did it, even fewer were good at it, and all of the traits of a successful pit dog just made them better dogs overall (high pain tolerance, clear head under stress, high bite inhibition, etc) And yes, as mentioned, many well known fighting dogs were tolerant of dogs outside of the pit itself. They didn't just jump any dog they saw on the street, and certainly not people.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

AmericanSuprDog wrote:With much respect I hardly see how falling on the side of fighting in falling in the middle ground. To fall in the middle ground would be to say some were bred for fighting, which is different than the whole breed itself being bred for the purpose of fighting.

As for PitBull411 however much of the information has been taken out of context from their references, the references provided have provided a skewed history or the references provided are from more recent times written by writers with little to no experience in the breed in order to sell a book or promote an agenda.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I fall in the middle ground with what the breed make up is not what it was used for. The breed was originated from Bulldogs and Terriers. None of the quotes you posted dispute that the Pit Bull started as a pit fighting dog. I personally believe that a well bred Pit is one of the most stable dogs one could ask for. That however does not change the origional reason for their existance.

Not only am I a member of the Michelle says my dog is fat club I'm the president!I can Alpha Roll hair!